Listing matters of interest pertaining to the Natives of The Land Below The Wind - Sabah - and their traditions, cultures and heritage, and any other matters of public interest. If you have anything interesting subject to share with, please drop a line at sjdisimon@gmail.com.
ARTICLES OR COMMENTS WRITTEN BY INDIVIDUALS AND PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OF Linundus Kinabalu.

Monday, January 25, 2010

A Linundus reader (Aizah) emailed to me the following article from the Turkey’s Daily News written by a Turkish Muslim, Mustafa AKYOL as he describes the ‘Allah’ controversy in Malaysia which I reproduce hereunder:

The trouble with Islamo-tribalism

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Nasty things are happening in Malaysia. Nine Christian churches havebeen vandalized or burnt just over the last weekend. Thank God, nobodyhas been hurt, yet, but the terror unleashed is terrifying enough forthe Christian minority of this overwhelmingly Muslim nation.

Also thank God that the attacks were the work of a fanatic minorityamong Malaysian Muslims, or Malays. Many others, including governmentspokesmen, denounced the barbarism. Some volunteers from Muslimnongovernmental organizations have even begun patrolling churches toprotect them from possible future attacks. This is, of course,commendable.

Yet still, I think that Malays should deal not just with the radicalsymptoms of the problem. They should also deal with the problemitself.

A copyright of God?

The problem itself is a “copyright issue,” as Marina Mahathir, a Malaycommentator, rightly put it. Christians in the country have been usingthe word “Allah” to refer to God in their services and publications,whereas the Malays believe that they have a monopoly on it. Hence theMuslim-dominated government recently put a ban on non-Muslims usingthe term. Yet last month the High Court overturned the ban.And hellbroke lose.

As a Turkish Muslim, I strongly disagree with my Malaysiancoreligionists who disagree with the Christians. The word “Allah”simply means “The God” in Arabic, and Arab Christians have been usingit for centuries without any trouble. In Turkey, too, Bibles publishedby Turkish Christians used to have the term “Allah” until the recent“modernization” in their discourse. The change is their choice, andnone of our business.

Most Muslims, in other words, don’t have a problem with hearing theword “Allah” from non-Muslim theists. And this is how it should be,because the Koran repeatedly says that Muslims worship the sameGodwith Jews and Christians. "We believe in the revelation which has comedown to us and in that which came down to you,” a verse orders Muslimsto tell these fellow monotheists. “Our God and your God is one."Whence, then, comes the Malay possessiveness of Allah?

The Malaysian government argues that making Allah synonymous with Godmay “confuse Muslims and ultimately mislead them into converting toChristianity.” Wow, what a great sign of self-confidence. Why don’tthey rather think, one wonders, that the same thing might ultimately“mislead” Christians into converting to Islam.

Besides the obvious immaturity, what is really disturbing to me hereis how Allah, the “Lord of mankind” according to the Koran, is reducedto something like a tribal deity.This was all too obvious in the slogan of the protesters at themosques of Kuala Lumpur: "Allah,” they said, “is only for us."But who do you think you are, one should ask. Who gives you theauthority to claim that the name of God of all men is your privateproperty?

The answer, as you can guess, lies not in theology but politics. As apiece published in these pages yesterday (Gwynne Dyer, "In the Name ofAllah") explained well, the Muslim Malays, despite making up 60percent of Malaysia, “feel perpetually insecure.” They worry that iftheir numbers in population decrease so will their dominant role inthe country. Hence comes Malaysia’s tyrannical bans on apostasy from Islam,limitations on mixed marriages, and the current obsession with theChristians’ language.

The main intention behind these is thepreservation of the dominance, and the “purity,” of a certainpolitical community – say, a big tribe. (The medieval Islamic ban anapostasy, which has no basis in the Koran, was similarly a product ofpolitical motives.)

But pursuing the perceived interests of a political community thathappens to be Muslim, is not the same thing with upholding thereligious values that God has bestowed on Muslims.

The difference between the two is subtle but crucial. It is thedifference between serving God, and making God serve us,Jihad, victory and empire.The latter motivation, I suspect, is imperative in the makeup of theself-righteous, authoritarian and violent movements in thecontemporary Muslim world. These movements always strive for somevictory, some political dominance, which will elevate their veryselves above all other men.

The words of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian whotried to blow up a passenger airliner near Detroit two weeks ago, arequite telling. “I imagine how the great jihad will take place,” hereportedly said, “how the Muslims will win ... and rule the wholeworld, and establish the greatest empire once again!!!”

The yearning for glory here is not too different from what arevolutionary communist expects from the dictatorship of theproletariat, or what a chauvinist expects from an imperialist agendathat will make his nation the master of the world.

The Muslim thing to do, however, is to be more humble, modest andopenhearted. The Koran tells Muslims that they are supposed to be “thebest community that has been raised up for mankind.” Yet they reallycan’t serve that purpose if they begin by despising the rest ofmankind, and claiming an ownership of God.

And Malaysia can’t really uphold the values of Islam through Islamo-tribalism.

High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan made it clear in her judgment that the publication or use of the term 'Allah' is only prohibited if it is meant to propagate non-Islamic faiths to Muslims.
The words (in the Preamble to the Selangor Non Muslim Enactment 1988) are vital to show the prohibition is only against usage of such words as 'Allah' to PROPAGATE among Muslims.
There is NO law to stop non-Muslims from using it in their own publications meant for members of their own faith.
Furthermore, the enactments passed are STATE laws and can NEVER over-ride the Federal Constitution.